As per the previous thread entitled 'Censorship', I have also been notified about http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=460369 being in jail.

Thing is, I have absolutely no idea why. Because it got 'jailed' sometime overnight.

Now the previous answer about 'jail' being inaccessible was to avoid porn and spam being reviewed. But I don't see why anything else - e.g. flames etc. should be lumped in the same category.

What are we trying to hide? Why is it deemed insufficient to lock a thread? If I've been insulted, then I believe I have the right to see it - after all, plenty of other users DID see it, before it was jailed.

I'm not sure that censoring/hiding that kind of thread/posts is necessarily good - it smacks of sanitising...

KiwiNZ

June 1st, 2007, 08:30 PM

I believe matthew has answered this in this thread http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=460920

The jail has worked well for several years and is something we clearly state in our code of conduct.

epee

June 4th, 2007, 06:12 PM

I'm sorry, but the post you refer to falls a long way short of answering my question(s).

Furthermore, just because you've had something for a period of time or that it is well publicised doesn't mean it is a good thing.

But I agree, the jail works well to hide the stuff you don't want people to see...

matthew

June 4th, 2007, 06:36 PM

Are you saying you would prefer we leave posts that include direct insults in the forums at large? That we should make them accessible for all users?

Yes, this was sanitizing. We didn't want those insulting posts to create an atmosphere of raised tensions and overall grumpiness in the forums. We cleaned them out and did so unapologetically.

epee

June 5th, 2007, 08:41 AM

I can only say that this is the first forum I've come across that sanitises in this manner. As I pointed out, why is it that only those who happened to be reading the thread can be allowed to know what was said?

There is absolutely no way for anyone else to know whether or not the moderation decision was fair/justified.

If the thread is locked, then that's an end to it. Indeed - if need be, delete offensive posts too. But now every aspect of the discussion leading up to the insults has been lost - even if there was something worthwhile in there. (And that is a general point, rather than specific to the thread in question.)

It's called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

matthew

June 5th, 2007, 08:49 AM

It may be the only forum you have come across that does things this way, or perhaps it is the only time you have noticed. Most forums aren't as transparent about it as we are. This is an extremely common and normal occurrence in forums.

The only place you will find uncensored posting is in unmoderated usenet news groups.

epee

June 6th, 2007, 12:46 PM

I never suggested posts should be un-moderated. (BTW, censorship is WAY more than moderation...)

In a free, democratic society, censorship is a blunt tool that should be rarely employed. It seems here to be used frequently, proudly and with relish. I'm afraid that does not speak well for this forum...

But carry on an justify it any way you want - in the end that's what the over-powerful do all the time - justifying the unjustifyable for their own ends.